|
Post by wild on Mar 25, 2007 9:40:32 GMT -6
Hi Fred Hunch? Hunch? You have to be kidding. This isn't a hunch. It is a solid, reasonable argument based on good, circumstantial evidence. If circumstantial vidence is used then your accusation would become an occupational hazzard for all runners leaving a force going into action.Interesting that two runners drew the short straw and two drew long straws. You claim that the packs did not conform to the instructions carried by Kanipe but then again neither did Benteen heed Martin's message. McDougal is not an independent witness and for him to write a reference for a possible shirker and a man who compromises him is just unbelievable. If I understand you correctly you believe Kanipe decided to play the role of a rogue messenger but would not go as far as delivering a message.Or if he ran into the packs first he would say he had a message for Benteen.Lucky for him Benteen and the packs were some distance apart.Lucky for him Benteen did not take an interest in the message.Lucky for him he was not sent back to Custer.Lucky for him there were no survivors.In fact if your contention is right we have ouselves one cunning lucky cookey.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Mar 25, 2007 10:06:03 GMT -6
If circumstantial vidence is used then your accusation would become an occupational hazzard for all runners leaving a force going into action.
Of course the force sending the runner would have to wiped out to the last man. Which kind of changes the occupational hazard theme.
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Mar 25, 2007 10:08:59 GMT -6
The question- Is it more likely or not that a Sergent is sent with a message under the conditions that were occurring at the time?
I think not.
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by wild on Mar 25, 2007 10:26:59 GMT -6
Is it more likely or not that a Sergent is sent with a message under the conditions that were occurring at the time What conditions would require a sergeant to be detailed as a runner?Huge Indian village,one of your units under attack another unit miles in the rear,time vital?
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Mar 25, 2007 10:56:03 GMT -6
Military protocol should dictate how messages or orders were sent at that time. Is there some sliding scale that weighs the current situation with the rank/experience of the carrier? If so Custer should have sent brother Tom to speed things up.
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by wild on Mar 25, 2007 11:51:03 GMT -6
All communications at regimental level should have been by junior officer who should have been required to return to HQ.Officers are a different species and only a message carried by an officer has the required status.A verbal from an inarticulate scabby ranker just will not do.HQ should have had a number of recognized staffers to fill this role.But then that bloody regiment was just typical of post war run down units overflowing with demoted colonels.The communication fiasco was just one of many failings in a crap system.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Mar 25, 2007 12:09:09 GMT -6
Good point about TC going back to Benteen and/or pack train. HE would have made sure things were moved up properly and with no questions asked by anyone.
Any officer, in fact, may have been a better choice than Martini--still some question about Kanipe--Martini was almost mute in reporting, until he got back to his bunkies, then "Reno was killed Indians left and right"
Still, it appears enlisted men was the choice for messengers like the two Reno sent to Custer.
But under the circumstances with Custer an officer may have been more effective in ensuring a speedy call-up.
|
|
|
Post by wild on Mar 26, 2007 5:05:29 GMT -6
Hi Fred I can no longer deal with that. Sorry. I hope you are not withdrawing from the discussion.We do not agree on this subject but let's respect the validity of the different view points here.Perhaps in the heat of debate we forget to take account of just from where the other fellow is coming. You bring an enormous amount of experience and insight into the human condition particulary under combat to these debates.Your posts filled with emotion and insight bring the characters to life.Time and again posters have paid you the highest accolade--"you have me convinced Fred".A cold exchange of unadorned facts innocent of the human element would not do justice to our heros. Whatever the subject of our debates I hope you will continue to put flesh and blood on our heros and enlighten and entertain us with your deliciously robust humanity. Slan
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Mar 26, 2007 7:40:54 GMT -6
www.astonisher.com/archives/museum/dan_kanipe_little_big_horn.html"Away off in the distance, the dust rolling up like a little cloud, I saw the pack train. I went toward that. My company and the others went on down toward the Indian camp." Kanipe says he saw the dust. Even if his memory is failing it is not a fact that he would need to make up to change the outcome of what he did. It doesn't help or hinder his status therefore I would accept it. AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by fred on Mar 26, 2007 8:27:45 GMT -6
Wild--
You give me too much credit, but I thank you for it. That was an extremely kind thing to say and I am humbled.
No, I am not leaving this debate, but I have had to set my longer answers/responses aside for the moment. We have this college basketball tournament going on over here-- the media have dubbed it, "March Madness," and it is exactly that. For some odd, exceptionally weird reason (and if you knew me, you would understand that is not even close to hyperbole, but probably a gross understatement), I have always been a rabid fanatic w/ my university's basketball program (and this from someone who has never played a single game of the sport, even in a playground). Anyway, my school is one of the "Final Four" in the tournament (65 teams begin the festivities at the end of the "regular season") and I become somewhat numbed each time the kids play. Oddly enough, it's like watching one's own children: I clip the newspaper articles, I have people sending me newspapers from all over, I tape the games, and on and on. A measurement of my insanity is that I have over 15,000 articles dating as far back as 1977, and the only reason it is 1977 is because somehow, some way, some one tossed out the articles I had dating back to my freshman year of 1958.
You, all, are clearly dealing w/ a maniacal lunatic here. It's so bad, that for 8 years I actually packed up and went to every game they played, home and away. That generated car trips from New York to Boise, Idaho; Oklahoma City; Tampa; Chicago; Toronto, you name it, I went there. It got so bad, that I would leave work at 1 p.m., drive 275 miles for a home game in Washington, DC, at 7 p.m., then drive back the same night so I could be at work the following morning.
Anyway, Risteard, I will respond to your last larger post, just give me a little time (I am also working on a couple of huge projects while I recover from the euphoria of yesterday's game).
And Ranger, that was a very important point in your last post.
Thanks again for the kind words. They really are greatly appreciated.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Mar 26, 2007 11:30:31 GMT -6
Okay, let me try to tackle this Kanipe business one more time.
First of all, I do not believe Kanipe was a bad soldier. As best I can figure, he served 2 hitches, finally getting out in 1882. Proficiency as a soldier, however, does not equate to bravery, and as a farmer from North Carolina, I can understand his preference for soldiering; at least until he could turn it to his advantage.
I believe Kanipe was a sublime opportunist and when he realized Custer and the 5 companies were moving away from any and all support, ostensibly to do what Custer always did-- attack-- Kanipe realized the potential dangers, especially since he already knew Custer was likely to further dilute his force by another battalion division. Kanipe was well aware that both Yates and Keogh commanded battalions. I am also sure Kanipe was reasonably well aware of the magnitude of what was soon to be faced, and while I am fairly sure he had no idea of the fate awaiting Old Goldilocks, Kanipe figured discretion was the better part of valor and pulled the old, "O-o-o-o-h! Sorry boys, go on ahead... my horse is lame," trick.
Knowing the route they had just taken was free of hostiles, Kanipe merely backtracked, seeking the best means of safety. Seeing the rising dust plumes from what was obviously a rapidly moving cavalry column-- without realizing it was Benteen-- Kanipe headed in that direction. (For those of you who still do not believe dust can rise that high, I may point out AZ Ranger's posts and also that as Benteen got nearer to Ford A, the intervening bluffs became lower.) Benteen would have been Kanipe's last choice, for what could he tell the captain, especially if his absence was noticed after the battle and Benteen told Custer Kanipe had "given him the boss' orders."
So, our intrepid sergeant concocted the idea about hurrying the packs. He told Benteen, to which the kindly old warrior replied, "Look, Blockhead, the packs are back that-aways!" Now Kanipe rides back (notice the constant retrograde movements?) along the column, shouting all the necessary comments about, "we're having fun up there, not to worry, hurry along or you'll miss the celebratory champagne." Once he reaches the end and spots the packs in the distance, he slows down and picks a safe interval between the two columns.
Ergo, McDougall and Mathey never realize Kanipe is there. At some point-- maybe as the packs veer northward-- Kanipe makes his presence known to a few people who could only later say, "Yeah, I remember a sergeant telling us to hurry."
Fully expecting a victory, Kanipe now has all his excuses, his story, in order. To Tom Custer or Henry Harrington he could say, "Hey, Chief, my horse conked out, but I did my duty as an NCO and told the packs they might be needed up ahead. Look at all that initiative I took."
As the days wore on, Kanipe-- never a dummy-- fully exploited the public relations value of being a "hero" at the Little Big Horn. "Hey, boys! Lookee-here! I spotted all them Injuns on the hilltop, told my boss, and the general ordered us up to get 'em. I was in the midst of it when the ol' horse gave out. Damn!" Mama and daddy raised no fool in Daniel!
Then, if our hero did so much on Reno Hill, how come we don't hear about his forays down Water Carrier Ravine? How come he isn't mentioned along w/ people like Ryan and Culbertson? How come Benteen doesn't hold a special place for him like he did w/ Varnum, Godfrey, McDougall, and Hare? That's all. Like I said, a sublime opportunist. And you something? Here we are, amidst all the books and articles, talking about Daniel Kanipe, some 131 years after the battle. Atta way, Danny-boy!
That song wasn't about him, was it?
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by wild on Mar 26, 2007 12:28:39 GMT -6
That song wasn't about him, was it? I prefer the Minstrel Boy myself Fred.No doubting in which direction he was headed. The minstrel boy to the wars has gone In the ranks of death you will find him
Discussing,argueing,debating and judging the actors in this tragedy-- everyone one of them failed in some respect .Caught between a rock and a hard place these heros all appear fallible that is all except Kanipe who took the hand he was dealt and played it brilliantly. Photographs of him show a fit intelligent looking soldier, a man you would like beside you in a tight spot..If your scenario is correct Fred his crime is no more dastardly than Reno's or Benteen's. Slan
|
|
|
Post by Jas. Watson on Mar 26, 2007 14:05:03 GMT -6
Fred, You hit the nail square on the head as far as I am concerned! That is what I've always thought about the incident but was always somewhat afraid to voice it right out as I figured everyone knew some things about it that I didn't know. I really can't see it much any other way in light of the known facts and evidence. Even McDougal's letter of recommendation has the ring of a stock form letter. I doubt the man really even knew what Sergt. Kanipe was like one way or other. I think the only way to really set this more or less straight one way or the other is to find his record before LBH. Was he the kind you'd see up front or back in the rear. I think we both think exactly alike on this one!
Jas~
|
|
|
Post by mcaryf on Mar 26, 2007 14:09:09 GMT -6
Hi AZ Ranger and Fred
I would just point out that the link AZ Ranger has given is to the well known Kanipe article that was published in 1924 when he was 72 and 2 years before he died./
It is riddled with inaccuracies (e.g. he meets McDougall before Benteen, the composition of Custer's force etc) and cannot be used as definitive proof of anything very much.
However, I would say that that particular web site does have a load of interesting material on it such as John Stands in Timber's version of the battle which is one of the main justifications for the Ford D story so well worth a read.
I do not think we are going to get much further forward with the Kanipe debate as there are clearly two different points of view and enough evidence/theory to justify either position as being possible.
The truth or otherwise does not make a great deal of difference. If Kanipe was not a genuine messenger it makes Custer look slightly more inept as a commander who does not tell his subordinates what is happening or what he wants them to do. It also takes away a bit of the stick that John Gray and others use to beat up Benteen about being slow after being told to hurry. Since I personally do not think Benteen was being slow anyway that does not much effect my views.
If Kanipe was a genuine messenger then it makes Mathey and McDougall look either devious or poor witnesses due to bad memory and faulty recollection. Personally I already think McDougall was a poor witness due to other failings so again the Kanipe truth impact is no big deal.
Regards
Mike
|
|
|
Post by Jas. Watson on Mar 26, 2007 14:17:07 GMT -6
The Mathey and Mc Dougall lack of memory to me is the single most damning point in this whole thing. If someone was supposed to deliver a message (especially one as significant as one that changes the march route), and the recipients don't have any recollection of it (not one, but two of them), then there is something definitely wrong here. That coupled with the rest of it.... well, it makes me want to see some proof that he was a messenger. Until then I rather doubt it--how can one be a messenger when no message was delivered?
Jas~
|
|